streakeagle

Since WoI, AI have benefitted from RWR info and reacted appropriately (i.e. evading RHMs when illuminated). Since WoI, AI have utilized low altitudes/terrain masking to render F-4E radar and RHMs (Sparrows) almost useless. So, I would expect that if you were flying low enough and/or using mountains to break radars while also leaving your radar turned off, that you could penetrate intense 1960s/1970s combat air patrols more effectively since they would have to get within visual range to detect your presence. What I don't know is how well AI communicates amongst each other. If you fly over a manned anti-aircraft gun, say a ZSU-23-4, do air assets get a "red crown" style callout the way the player does?

The AI has improved quite a bit since SFP1 Service Pack 2a. Additionally, the AI constraints can be customized for each aircraft, which wasn't true back then. I would bet that if I ever got around to finishing my new F-4B FM that it would work fairly well in SF2. Of course, for me, the main gain of having hyper-accurate FMs was permitting very realistic dissimilar air combat in multiplayer. In SF2 series, the single missions and campaigns have sufficient immersion out of the box (thanks to greatly refined AI and great looking cockpits), that I really don't feel driven to refine the FM any more... I would still kill for a true hard-core F-4 sim with all the button pushing glory of Falcon 4 (including full support for a 2nd playe to be the RIO/WSO) AND a full-fledged F-4 flight model. But I don't think TK's sims are ever going to get me there, they simply remain the closed available alternative. As my son gets older, maybe I will get the time to continue my own FM research and development. I not only have the info needed to refine the F-4, but have as much or more information on the XB-70, which would be a challenging aircraft to fly in its pre-fly-by-wire generation.

this is an old trick that requires editing the control ini file for the arrow keys. By default, they are configured to auto center and have a very reactive motion to allow you to pull hard turns. Set centering to 0 and play around with the sensitivity until you like it.

Well, after I exhausted every other path, I resorted to a System Restore. I went back far enough to circumvent a few new software installs and DirectX updates. After system restore, I had to re-install the video driver... then I got my anti-aliasing back at 1600x1200. I am not sure whether it was a Windows Update, a DirectX update, or some software I installed to support a remote controlled wireless R2D2 webcam... But I got it working right again, so I am happy.

I have seen other people on various forums posting similar problems and never thought much of it... But all of a sudden today, I lost the ability to force anti-aliasing at 1600x1200. If I knock the resolution down to 1280x960 or 1400x1050, everything works normally. I did not change my driver or its settings (though I have done a bunch of that today trying to find the problem). Anybody have any clue as to how or why this would suddenly happen? I am thinking it has to be related to a Windows update, like directX or something like that. But I am at a loss as to what to try/test next.

Funny that you don't want to shoot down bombers with tailguns using missiles... Sparrows and Sidewinders weren't developed to kill fighters, large formations of bombers were exactly what they were supposed to knock down. I like to save Sparrows for MiG-17s since they can be so difficult to kill with F-4s, but AIM-9Bs are almost useless against anything else, so I have no problems expending them on IL-28s. For game purposes, I faced Il-28s a lot while playing campaigns in WoI and to win the mission I had to kill them quickly before they could drop their ordnance. I generally popped off all of my sidewinders, then did high speed passes from almost beam angles and repeated them quickly by using the vertical. With just a bit of practice, I can kill an Il-28 in a single high speed pass with precision gunner. However, there is always a chance that I get too aggressive or the Il-28s get an angle on me first.

The MiG-19 looked great on paper, especially compared to its rival, the F-100, but for many reasons, pilots hated it. With the exception of the Chinese, most Communist air forces went from MiG-17s to MiG-21s, buying/building as few MiG-19s as possible. There were numerous reliability/quality control issues that gave this plane a bad reputation. In SFP1, none of the real world problems are apparent and as originally modeled was an unstoppable UFO in online multiplayer mixing the power of the F-4 with the maneuverability of the MiG-17. By the 083006 patch series, the MiG-19 was a lot less dominant, the F-8E took over as the new unstoppable UFO. With multiplayer having been deleted in SF2, there is really no good way to evaluate the FMs on a comparitive basis. I need to fly against established human pilots that fly the aircraft to every limit to really know how the flight models compare to each other.

I love the looks of quite a few aircraft. Spitfires are true classics, but not far off are P-51Ds and F4U-1As. B-17s are clean and elegant despite their guns. A-5s are clean and sleek. Concorde certainly has lines as elegant as a Spitfire. Su-27s combine many of the best features of F-14s, F-15s, and F-18s (all of which are pretty nice looking too!). But if you press me to name one aircraft that is the "nicest looking", I would have to name an aircraft that is over 40 years old and still looks (and flies) faster than anything before or since: the A-12/SR-71. A close 2nd for me is the T-38A Talon with its big bubble canopies, coke-bottle waist, and sleek wings and tail surfaces... painted as a USAF Thunderbird even better yet.

TK has basically 2 types of aerodynamic co-efficients: simple constants and those that vary with some other parameter. In reality, a particular co-efficient may depend on many parameters, but to keep things simple, TK chooses only one that he considers most significant. The one exception I can think of is engine thrust, which varies with Mach and altitude. Most others vary with either Mach or Alpha (angle-of-attack). Lift, thrust, and drag calculations are not that difficult and are the ones that primarily determine performance such as max speed, ceiling, turn rate, climb rate, etc. So if you focus on these, you can quickly reach a point where you can tune existing flight models to be much more accurate. On the other hand, it is the stability and control variables that are the hardest to estimate or even tweak, yet are the most important in terms of the "feel" or character of the aircraft. As an example, I created a high fidelity F-4B flight model for the service pack 2a version of SFP1. I used a flight model editing tool I created to compare and tune TK's stock flight model to match the performance charts from the US Navy F-4B pilot's flight manual. My tool (AIDE) is focused on lift, drag, thrust, and weight under steady state conditions such as level flight, a sustained climb, or a steady turn. The results were very encouraging. Years later, I stumbled onto NASA documents that gave me very accurate tables for some of the co-efficients such as zero lift drag (CD0). It turned out that my estimate of CD0 was reasonably close, and the way the ingame performance of my flight model matched the Navy charts was somewhat impressive. But, I never tweaked TK's stability numbers, so despite demonstrating a lot of the flight performance to very accurate levels, the "feel" may or may not be correct depending on how well TK estimated those parameters. I got too busy with work and real life to fix the bugs that creeped into later versions of AIDE (causing crashes, especially if you open more than one FM at a time) as well as being overwhelmed by the rate at which TK changes the game's flight engine and stock FMs. So, don't be discouraged from tweaking FMs. Just be aware that it is a very complicated subject that can take quite a bit of time to learn and still take even more time after you feel like you know what your doing. The small group of die-hard FM modders for this sim will help as much as they can, but I have been mostly out of the loop since my son was born in Nov 2006. Good luck!

There is a summary of the basic meanings of the coefficients, but Third Wire sims essentially use real world linear approximations for aerodynamics. So the best way to learn is to actually study aerodynamics and then tinker with the flight models to grasp the concepts. At a minimum, you need to be good with trig and algebra, though it doesn't hurt to understand calculus and differential equations. So, to answer your question, there is no in depth FM tutorial unless you count the books available for learning to be an aerospace engineer. The book at this link: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Combat-Aircra...e/dp/0870214268 is an outstanding primer, but as it was written by a German, some of the examples use different symbols/notation than mentioned in the text or compared with American/English equations as used in TK's sims. However, if you comprehend what is written, this book is like a bible to me, both for performance analysis and estimation of real world aircraft and for deriving flight models in TK's game engine. While the book is not enough to allow you to start writing FMs from scratch, it should give you the insights you need to delve deeper into the world of flight modeling.

Interesting that the aircraft involved is named as a MiG-19, but every aspect of the conversation indicates that it was a MiG-17. In particular, the Have Drill program named was the evaluation of the MiG-17. Also the F-86 is named as being the closest thing in US servcie to the MiG for evaluations against F-100 and F-105. None of the described info really fits the MiG-19, but the low roll rate and high turn rate easily describe the MiG-17. An F-86 is nothing like a MiG-19, but is a lot like the MiG-15/MiG-17 family. So, I believe it was a major typo (the whole article has tons of mistakes as typed onto the web).

C-5s are amazing aircraft to see flying low in take-off/landing configurations. Seeing something so large flying so slow. I miss the original MAC colors (white over gray with a blue stripe between the two). I know the C-5s have been overhauled quite a bit, but they have also done quite a few years/miles of flying. I wonder how long they can keep going? Obviously, this one's time ran out. Can anyone say "spare parts"?

You are preaching to the choir on this subject. Since the game was released, the gunsight pipper has wandered all over the place without regard for the sight glass. At one point, the pipper stopped wandering down into the instrument panel, but TK discovered that "bug" and "fixed" it back to the way he meant it to be: able to go anywhere. I think his intent is to help those who play with no cockpit. In which case, why can't he make a checkbox option for sight glass clippling so that people who want some sort of realistic immersion are supported, too? I just don't get his stubbornness on this issue at all. I can't think of any other sim, lite or hard core, that handles this so poorly. Oh, well, no sim ever has every feature I want, why should this one be any different?

I really like the look and feel of Space Shuttle Mission 2007 based on screenshots, reviews, and the free demo. As I am about to buy it, I notice that they have a recommended product: 3 spare activations. I immediately abandoned my order, as I like to "own" the games I buy. In general, I think I should be able to store the game on semi-permanent media, such as a DVD and reinstall it at will without having to buy any extra activations. I have had to rebuild many a PC in the past, and won't pay a hostage fee for re-installing/activating a game I already purchased. I don't mind copy protection that is based on some sort of license key (unless it can only be activated via the web). However, I don't want to lose the ability to install the game because the web activation is no longer available or I have used up my activations, etc. Other flight sim companies practicing the same type of policy have lost/will continue to lose my business as well. Star Force didn't stop me from buying Flaming Cliffs. Fortunately, it didn't appear to have a noticable impact on my home gaming PC. However, my wife installed another UbiSoft game with Star Force, Prince of Persia 3, on her work laptop and it broke her Windows so bad that she had to use Ghost to restore a previous image (system restore was not adequate). So, I am not going to risk buying/installing any more games with Star Force now that I have had first hand experience comparable to reports I have seen on the web (at least there was no hardware damage). On the other hand, Third Wire has the business model that works best for me: 1. Once purchased, download at will any time. 2. Copy to any desired media at will. 3. Reinstall at will. 4. No form of copy protection whatsoever, thereby foregoing the need to wait for a no-cd crack so I don't have to swap discs every time I want to play a different game. I have bought every sim ever released by Third Wire, some of them more than once.

It would be really nice if somehow DCS Black Shark and Flaming Cliffs coudl interface in multiplayer until the DCS series is more rounded out. Of course, jet getting a new patch is way better than nothing if it fixes/adds more things than it breaks

Based on my experience with the Radeon 8500 and 9800 Pro on P3 PCs, I would say that while framerates my not improve much, I was able to run the 9800 Pro on max quality settings no matter what the game was, so sometimes buying an overmatched gpu can be convenient. I consider the price difference between the 4850, 4870, and 4890 insignificant: I can get an OC (900 MHz) 4890 with 1GB of RAM from NewEgg for about $250 after MIR, a stock 4850 with 1GB of RAM is about $140... difference is about 2 hours of overtime pay (trivial since I just racked up 22 hours last pay period and will get about 5 hours a week guaranteed for a couple of more weeks). I am willing to bet there would be differences, even with my CPU being so slow, depending on the level of FSAA selected and I always play all of my games at 1600x1200 or 1920x1080. If I wasn't about to move, I would just go get another PC.

Actually, given the current prices ($230 to $250), why not get a 4890?

I don't know why you have to extract it... My controls ini is available for editing... in the new folder structure. The changes weren't for the sake of change. It was all about Vista and its enchanced protection of files in the program folder and provision for separate game folders for user accessible files. The only inconvenience to me is the change to unicode text files which makes the old cat extractor useless. Fortunately, some people have come up with tools to use until TK releases his own.

McDonnell built the F-101D, they just named it the Phantom :) The F-4 Phantom was a blend of the lessons learned from the F3H Demon and F-101 Voodoo. Putting J79s in F-101s made as much sense as putting PW1120s in F-4s: much better performance, but still not as good as the next generation that was built to use that class of engine. No amount of thrust would overcome the structural and aerodynamic limitations of the base airframes. Of course, I would have loved to see both of those aircraft modernized to the full extent possible. F-101s with J-79s and APQ-120 radars would simply have been F-4s with less maneuverability, but possibly faster! F-4s would have really gained in the areas of climb, acceleration, and range using PW1120 turbofans, though top speed probably would have suffered a bit going from turbojet to turbofan. Turn performance would have been improved some, but was largely airframe limited (max load).

My ATi x1800XT was a bargain and it still works fairly well, but I was shocked to discover when I went to download Catalyst 9.4 that my card is now a legacy product no longer supported after Catalyst 9.3. On the other hand, my 9800 Pro just now became a legacy product after 7 years! I think my video card and processor are well matched, so I don't think it is worth it for me to buy a 4870 or better since it will probably be CPU bound. Hopefully, I get moved to Kissimmee sometime this year so that I can start saving up to build a newer PC.

1) The stick you have pictured in the ebay add is not the ever popular standard B-8 2) You have tacked on the picture and text about my stick grip, which appears incorrect. Having trouble moving your stick grip and renaming it as a B-8 to try to get more/better bids? I am disturbed by what I see and will make comments at eBay to rectify the situation... Read your eBay posting a little better, you did mention that the last pic was an example, but I still think you are partly misrepresenting the stick. Your stick grip is the variant used on later F-4J/F-4S and F-4M. The amphenol adapter you show in you ad could be very useful to someone trying to join the grip to an appropriately sized tube and is a difficult accessory to locate.

This is a great adaptation of a flexible game engine. I don't think TK ever intended or considered the possibility of his sim being used for this... But I can assure you there is a market for it. Another lone developer (the one that made Xtreme Air Racing) already sold a firefighting sim for training based on that engine. I am pretty sure TK's engine stomps the Xtreme Air Racing game engine in both realism and moddability. Maybe TK needs to see this as well as the industry that would benefit from it :)

If TK's world isn't modeled as a sphere, why would anyone want to fly an "orbit" that isn't one? I know for sure TK's atomsphere model isn't designed for super high altitudes, he did what he needed to do to support the aircraft he wanted in the game. Making a flat map large enough to permit re-entry/landings is theoretically feasible if you don't mind the limitations of the game: no physics to support extremely high altitudes including the drag/heat from re-entry. A mission where you start at say 70,000 feet and have to finish the glide landing is far more practical, certainly well within game physics limitations. Is the purpose to be able to shoot at a space shuttle? If not, then a sim like Orbiter still makes a lot more sense. If you have cash to blow, there are several options. At a minimum, X-plane will let you simulate the re-entry (and also permits you to fly the X-15 from under the wing of the B-52). There is an actual game/sim dedicated to space shuttle missions that is far superior to anything else, Space Shuttle Mission 2007, http://www.space-shuttle-mission.com/ Game engine limitations aside, what is wrong with someone asking for the Space Shuttle in TW sims? What is wrong with a modder spending his time making one? Modders working for free can do whatever they want without regard for anyone else's wants or needs. Modders working for cash are free to decide what they think will make them the most money if they want to maximize their profits, otherwise, they will behave as modders working for free. So who has the authority to decide what any modders should be working on other than the modders themselves? Is that same person the designated forum police to prevent people from asking for things not on the authorized list?

Nothing wrong with adding the space shuttle to this sim, but this game engine really won't handle it that well. I would say that the maps are too small even if it does let you go into orbit around a sphere. If you want to fly the space shuttle, I suggest you download the free spaceflight simulator, oribiter, whose game engine is designed from day one to let you experience everything from liftoff to orbit to spacewalks and re-entry. Like Third Wire sims, there are tons of addons. You can recreate Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions. The Apollo simulation is amazing since it includes a very detailed cockpit that can be used to simulate the entire mission according to the NASA procedures. There are also some science fiction addons like the Eagle from Space:1999. Go here for more info: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

I have been playing AH since version 1.03. I am presently a subscriber, but rarely play. My skills are not what they once were, so the little time I try to fly online, I get my butt handed to me. On a good night, I re-up over and over at a base under heavy attack and have fun trying to get up enough speed and alt to fight before someone can vulch me. As I always fly alone, when I try to take off from a safe distance and come in at a decent altitude, I usually get intercepted by 2 or more enemies with equal or better aircraft who then promptly bleed my E and kill me. Sometimes, I get lucky and get into a 1 v 1 duel and have a blast. I can only get online late, can't get online with any regular schedule and can't make any noise (sleeping 2 year old), so it is no fun for me to try to enjoy flying in a squad. Back in 2000-2002, I flew a lot when they had free 8 player head-to-head. I got really good and had tons of fun. By the time I could afford to subscribe, I was married and working a lot. Now I have a kid too. I still subscribe because I want to contribute to further development and to thank HiTech for the 3 years of free head-to-head. Now there are offline missions. Not quite as fun as flying with people, but pretty darn good. So now there is a good way to practice offline or play for free. I wish LAN play had not been disabled. This was a great game to introduce friends to flight simming since it has auto trim and stall limiters for begginers. At one point, I had my dad and three other friends playing this game with me on my LAN. Then we started playing Operation Flashpoint, and no one wanted to play Aces High any more. No one could learn to fly well enough to beat me in Aces High no matter what airplane I flew, whereas we could play co-op in Flashpoint where everyone could win and play missions with respawning to allow less skilled players to continue playing. I think Aces High has one of the most realistic flight models and gunnery models ever made. Aside from Third Wire sims, it is my favorite. Maybe as my son gets older, we will get to play it together.